After a two-year study done at prestigious Purdue University in my homestate of Indiana led by Professor Ayhan Irfanoglu (civil engineering), the findings support the government's account of why the Twin Towers came down. Sorry nuts. Bush didn't do it afterall. The steel which supported both structures were not made fireproof, which is now code in all structures being built today. Purdue is near the top, if not the top engineering school in the whole world and a two-year study showed their due diligence in this case. They used 3-D animation and a state of the art computer program to detail what would happen to the Twin Towers in the wake of the event of 9/11.

Half of the building's weight were in the columns, which were concentrated at the cores of the towers. The steel, which was not fireproof melted. "When that happens, the whole structure comes down" said Irfanoglu. He also said "if the columns were more distributed, maybe, the fire could not take them out so easily." Because the steel and concentration of weight was in the middle of the building, and the steel melted, the whole structure would come straight down because the outsides of the building would have to go down with the middle. So what happened to the 550 professors and scholars who founded the "Scholars For 9/11 Truth"? They came out quickly after 9/11 to say 9/11 was done by controlled demolition. What will be their explanation of this finding? I bet they will be pretty silent for a while.

This is a classic example of people who think they are much smarter than they actually are. Their ego drives them to not see what everyone else sees. That way they aren't like everyone else. The "common man". The "common man" is stupid and uneducated in their eyes, so therefore they HAVE TO see things differently. If they don't, then they will be like the "common man". Their ego just can't accept such a proposition. To these people history never happened. What I mean by that is there is no historical event that can't be debunked by effort in tearing down history's account of events. No matter how solid history's account is, to help them feel smarter they make up their version of history. If these people try hard enough, they can somehow make sense that there really is no United States of America. That we are still an extension of Brittania. I don't have to tell you that there really is a United States, do I? 

Let me clue you 9/11 conspiracy nuts in on something. History has happened. Much of it just the way we learned about it in school. Most things did not have alternative endings or hidden secrets that you think you are the only one to know about. You're not part of some minute group of people who have unlocked the real secrets behind history. You're not the Templar Knights. Some things just happened. Accept it. How do we get at this point in time if history didn't just happen? Anyone can break down a historical event even if history's account is accurate. Anyone can do it. It doesn't make you any smarter than everybody else I'm sorry to say. You're wasting your time and twisting your mind just to feed your ego. From what I've seen over the last ten years or so, this is a buffet you all have been munching on, too. What will be your dessert of a conspiracy theory? One has to wonder.

This goes to prove that these scholars and professors really know nothing more than the everyday person. They might know more in that concentrated area, but overall they are no smarter than Joe Shmoe. Unlike Joe Shmoe though, they have to try to outthink every damned thing that goes on. We all saw the planes crash into the Twin Towers. No one reported any CIA guys putting explosives into the Twin Towers beforehand. No one saw a second explosion in these buildings that would be indicative of a controlled demolition. When they show buildings being demolished, we see the explosions inside the building. Did you see the second explosions in the Twin Towers just before they came down? Neither did I. Where was the demolition's control station if it was a demolition? Aie aie aie, this one is just too easy. I guess that's the problem with these idiot 9/11 Truthers. It is too easy. Will those who see this report say "okay, we were wrong"? Hell no they won't. They will either say Purdue was threatened by the Bush Administration to go along with their account, or they will try to find the smallest part of that report to twist and say "see, we told you so! Bush did it!"

"To not to challenge the stupid is to err" is a new motto we should all live by. Okay, it's my motto and I just made it up, but hey, it's a good one. When someone says something completely stupid, no matter how smart the person is PERCEIVED to be, then it's like saying you believe in what they are saying. Whether it looks that way to other people, or to the stupid person themselves, you are saying to them you agree with their opinion. I don't mean saying something stupid that is harmless or a "blonde moment" like my friend was thinking. I mean when someone says something stupid about someone else. Saying things that are untrue. Saying things that can do harm. Saying things that are totally unbelievable like "the Americans secretly funded the Nazi War Machine so that way our country would have an excuse to invent the atom bomb." In a time when people don't realize that they say stupid things, we should all let them know it is stupid. Years ago I'm sure when someone said something stupid you could just turn your head and that person would take that as "damn, that was stupid to say wasn't it?" Not anymore. Ego is too high among people. This is the age of conceit. They think no matter how stupid their thought is that it's right. Why? Because their genius butts came up with it.

People in the spotlight are the best examples of this. People in the spotlight surround themselves with people that become bobbleheads. They agree with everything this person says. Why? Because their job or salary is on the line. No way are you going to tell your boss that he's stupid to say Bill O'Reilly pulled cables from the engine of JFK Jr's plane causing the deadly crash. At best you'll say "that O'Reilly is kinda mean". Of course I'm not speaking for all of you. Some of you will say "take this buttkissing job and shove it". Surrounded by "yes" men and "yes" women, those in the spotlight think that everything they can come up with must be right since everyone agrees with them. This helps their deterioration into insanity. I'm not just talking about those in Hollywood, I'm also talking about professors and politicians.

Professor (now FORMER professor) Ward Churchill compared the victims in the World Trade Center attack of 9/11 to "little Eichmanns". This was shortly written after 9/11. Adolf Eichmann was a Nazi logistical expert who orchestrated things such as the moving of Jews to the ghettos and the Nazi extermination camps. He hid in Argentina after WWII under a false name but the Israelis found him, brought him to the newly reborn Israel and tried then hanged him. Now it's not remotely a possibility for a sane person to draw comparisons between Eichmann and people who are working at the financial center of the USA. Some insanos might say "yeah, it's so simple but you can't see it because you're .... whoa!! the colors!!!... because you're blind maaan." That speaks for itself. There is no comparison that can be made between Eichmann and the people in the Twin Towers other than they all woke up in the morning. The title "tenured Professor" told Ward Churchill "you're smarter than everyone". This led to him getting mushy and cozy with his insane side. It probably happened one romantic night over dinner with that special bottle of Chteau Margaux under a moonlit sky. The next day he probably came up with the theory that Dick Cheney was hiding in a bunker in Mars in the weeks after the attacks. Now this idiot Churchill must have said and done stupid things quite a bit before that. It came out that there's nothing original that has come from this guy aside from the "little Eichmanns" comment. He made a painting that was nearly a split image from an already done painting. His American Indian background has been challenged. His thesises have been said to have been credited to someone else. I guess technically those were the reasons why he lost his job at the University of Colorado, but it was really the backlash over his "little Eichmanns" statement. Let's be honest. Anyone who can somehow compare people who were murdered by terrorists to a MURDERER should not be teaching ANYWHERE, so that is definitely enough to fire him. Any argument in favor of this jackass will fall on deaf ears over here. But perhaps he could have been saved if someone told him what he said was stupid a long time ago.

Professor Boyce Watkins of Syracuse University said that Juan Williams was just a "happy negro" twice on CNN. This went unchallenged amazingly enough. Now Watkins and CNN are both in trouble. Watkins for saying Williams was a "happy negro" twice because Williams dared to set the record straight on what Bill O'Reilly actually said, and CNN for not challenging his idiotic comments. If anyone has seen Juan Williams with Bill O'Reilly, you can attest that they don't agree on most things. They debate against eachother quite a bit. But with Juan Williams being called a "happy negro" by Watkins and CNN not challenging him, this made CNN complicit with his opinion. This is why "to not to challenge the stupid is to err." Heidi Collins from CNN conducted the interview on the show Newsroom. Watkins also compared O'Reilly to Ahmadinejad and a murderous villain in a movie. Somehow in his twisted mind he was able to do this. Does this make him a genius? No, it makes him a lunatic idiot. Will he get fired? Probably not. To university officials all over the country, Watkins said something "thought provoking". If Watkins was white and said that about Juan Williams.... OH BROTHER! All hell would break loose. He wouldn't even smell his professorship anymore.

Actor (I guess) James Brolin was doing a radio interview to promote his movie "The Hunting Party" on WPLR in New Haven, Connecticutt with hosts Chaz and AJ. I don't know who they are but I respect them. Chaz and AJ noted it was the sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and Brolin said mockingly "right, oh yeah. Happy 9/11!" A stunned Chaz replied "well that's kind of a weird thing to say". Brolin laughing said "I hear silence." Chaz said "yeah well we're here right outside of New York, and I know people who lost family members... so we don't say 'happy 9/11' around here." Brolin still chuckling said "celebrate the day, right?" Brolin who's married to fellow left-wing loon Barbara Streisand, tried to cover what he said by saying it was a "horrible situation" but was cut off by Chaz saying "I think you'd be better off talking about the movie." Jeff Wald, Brolin's manager (would you switch jobs with this guy?) later explained "he wasn't making fun of the tragedy. He was horrified by it. It was an off-the-cuff remark." He's not even expecting us to believe this excuse but he has to say it. His career depends at least partly on James Brolin. He is Brolin's "yes" man. Instead of maybe nipping Brolin in the bud many years ago and finding another job or person to represent, he decided that agreeing with everything Brolin said was the best thing to do. I'm not blaming him. I want to make that clear. Brolin going nutty enough to say "happy 9/11!" was his own fault. He's an alleged adult. Since Chaz and complicitly AJ confronted this jackass, they did the right thing. They didn't care he was an actor who might somehow make them money. They heard something grotesque and challenged the moron who said it.

When people you know say stupid and insensitive things, don't laugh or just go along with it for the sake of anything you can come up with in your mind. Set them straight. Not only will you take a stand against stupidity and insensitivity, but you'll be doing your friends a favor. Because it could be them one day saying "the Americans secretly funded the Nazi War Machine so that way our country would have an excuse to come up with the atom bomb." Do you want to avoid an argument now and later watch them go batty to the point you can't be around them anymore? Or would you rather confront stupid and insensitive things and help make your friend think about being a better person later on? Do you want your friend to turn into Dale Gribble from "King of the Hill"? There are enough of those around, don't you think?